An understandable but misleading headline by Jimmy. We should not conclude that we can pick and choose our “scientific truths” eg flat-earth, geocentrism, young earth creationism, chemtrails ….

From the conclusion of the video @11m30s
” … as flawed as our science maybe is, it is by far, the most reliable way of knowing … that we have”

This is an interesting, but exaggerated, critique of: p values taken in isolation, without repeatibility and with small sample sizes.

Peer-review is not perfect – but like democracy, it is the best system we currently have. Crackpot and pseudo-science does not usually get past the peer-review filter or survive for long in mainstream science.

If most peer-reviewed research was widely off the mark then we would not have made most of the scientific and medical advances we have made. If you seriously doubt established scientific consensus, then you should not rely on its fruits eg you should not take any tested medication, fly, drive, watch TV, use science or technology especially electronics, the internet, etc..

I am sorry that I am late to the party. The statistical worthiness of a study does not prove anything about the wrongness or rightness of the science, itself – only about the study done to prove a point. One may, badly, conduct an experiment to prove that water is wet. Because the experiment is bad, does that mean that water is not wet? John Ioannidis, the most prominent critic of poor statistics and the person who touched off the controversy, knows this. An experiment argues for a limited proposition.